Florida politics, policy, and plain-spoken analysis by Gary Fineout.

Tom Lee

March 27, 2017

After watching the prelude for weeks, the Florida Legislature and its Republican leaders will finally put pen to paper this week (so to speak) and release their detailed spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

After listening to leaders in the House and Senate discuss their priorities, the expectations are that the rival budgets could be widely divergent in what they cut, what they keep and what they enhance.

There are a multiple reasons for that, whether it's Senate President Joe Negron's push for increased money for state universities, or House Speaker Richard Corcoran's insistence that the state shutter its economic development agency Enterprise Florida.

But less noticed is that the House, Senate and Gov. Rick Scott have chosen to include information that supports their arguments, while seemingly sidestepping other salient points. This could influence the tenor of the debate that is about to intensify.

So it might be worthwhile and step back for just a second to recall how everybody got here and what's important to remember for the budget battle that still lies ahead.

So here's a few things to understand:

DON'T CALL IT A DEFICIT: There is no budget deficit this year. Plain and simple.

To understand the underlying budget situation, it's important to realize this. In Florida a deficit occurs when the state collects less money than what is needed to pay for things that are in the budget.

Florida's tax collections are in fact growing. The main budget account - known as the general revenue account - is expected to grow in the current fiscal year by 4.4 percent, or $1.23 billion. This same account, which relies on a variety of tax sources but primarily the state's sales tax, is expected to grow $1.16 billion - or 3.9 percent - in the fiscal year that starts on July 1. That's a stark difference from the depths of The Great Recession when legislators were required to cut spending (or in 2009 raises taxes) to make the math work.

So then where does the confusion lie?

Well, let's start with a document called the Long-Range Financial Outlook. Thanks to current Sen. Tom Lee, the voters in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment that requires the development of an outlook that looks out over a three-year period and reviews both sides of the ledger - the expected spending and the revenue coming in.

The outlook comes out once a year. The one approved in September found that when balanced together legislators had a windfall of only $7.5 million for the 2017-18 fiscal year. And the economists and analysts who put it together warned of a "structural imbalance" that could create a sizable budget gap in the years to follow. That has sparked talk of deep budget cuts including a House plan to cut at least $1.4 billion alone in the coming year.

But it's important to remember this budget gap is a summary of both revenues - and expenses.

The long-range outlook put together assumes nearly 50 different expenditures - and that greatly impacts the bottom line.

Let's start with tax cuts: The overall outlook assumes that there will be $254 million in recurring tax cuts in each of the next three years. This is based on a historical average in recent years, but the point is this, part of the projected gap is based on the assumption that legislators will continue to cut taxes, which adds to the potential shortfall, which helps trigger the need for cuts elsewhere to close that gap.

The budget shortfall or gap that is projected to occur is also driven by a long line of other spending decisions where economists plugged in the numbers based on historical decisions made by legislators: The outlook assumes a $1 billion reserve on top of other existing budget reserves. It assumes that legislators will fully fund increased enrollment in public schools, pay for increases in Medicaid, and set aside more than $400 million over the next three years to pay for increased costs associated with the state employee health insurance program.

But there's more - the outlook assumes an increase of per-student funding above enrollment growth, grants to libraries and museums, local government park grants, and in the out years money spent on replacing a law-enforcement radio system and the replacement of Florida's accounting system.

So what does that mean? In reality, the budget debate is one about choices.

Do legislators choose to keep cutting taxes? Do they choose to keep spending money on certain things? Do they choose to make deep cuts due to a philosophical belief that government is too big and too expensive? Do they refuse to revisit past decisions that contribute to their structural imbalance - including for example - decisions to give out tax credits to various businesses. This could include anything from the insurance tax credit that is targeted by the Senate, or the tax credit scholarship program that continues to grow. (The amount of tax credits available for the scholarship program is projected to increase from $559 million this fiscal year to nearly $699 million next year.)

THE SCHOOL TAX DEBATE: If there is one item that could derail the entire budget process it's the thorny annual dilemma over school property taxes.

Here's the problem: As property values rise, this translates into more money collected by local school districts that could be spent on public schools. In other words, if the value of your home goes up you will pay more in taxes in the coming year - unless the tax rate is lowered by an equal amount to offset the increase in values.

Legislators don't appropriate this local property tax money - BUT - they do draw up spending plans that assumes a mixture of both local and state funding. This is known as the Florida Education Finance Program or FEFP and districts that wish to draw down the state funding must collect a certain amount of money. (This is known as the required local effort or RLE.)

Republican leaders, including Scott, have used these increased local tax dollars to boost the overall amount spent on public schools. Some legislators have defended the practice by noting when property values plunged during the Great Recession that the state helped offset the loss (but not completely.)

But Corcoran has vowed that he will not let this happen this year - and he's taken a much stronger stance on this than practically every other spending item in play.

Important piece of history: Corcoran was chief of staff for then-House Speaker Marco Rubio when the Legislature waged a lengthy debate over property taxes during a time when Florida's real-estate market was super heated. The position of the GOP-controlled Legislature at the time was pretty simple: If local governments take in more tax dollars because of rising values, then it's a tax increase. Legislators forced cities and counties to roll back their tax rates. So Corcoran is being consistent with that position. (Also worth noting: Several senators, then in the Florida House, also took that position. Dennis Baxley, Anitere Flores, Bill Galvano, Denise Grimsley and Perry Thurston voted in favor of the bill to force local tax rollbacks.)

Scott has maintained that this isn't a tax increase and his own budget recommendation relies on nearly $558 million in increased local school taxes to help pay for an overall 3 percent increase in per-student funding. Scott has tried to suggest this is no different than if the price of a car goes up and you pay higher taxes because of the higher price. Yeah, but the government doesn't set the price of a car. In this instance government at both the state and local level have a hand in deciding how much property owners will spend.

BREAKING DOWN OTHER FLASHPOINTS...Quick hits on remaining things to look for and understand:

GAMBLING: Right now all these budget projections being thrown out do not assume any changes in Florida's gambling laws or a new compact with the Seminole Tribe. That means if - and it's a pretty big if - legislators could stroke a deal with the Seminoles and the rest of the players in the seemingly intractable gambling turf war it could provide an injection of cash that could help smooth things over.

GULF COAST SPILL MONEY: While this may not command a lot of attention around the state, the ongoing tug-of-war over money the state received as part of a settlement over the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is part of the overall dynamic that will decide how this session ends up. The state last year got $400 million as its first installment. Under an existing law some $300 million is supposed to go to eight Panhandle counties that were impacted the most by the spill. But the Legislature has to yet to agree to send the money out the door.

Corcoran and House leaders didn't like the arrangement allowed under the existing law so they have crafted a bill that places more oversight on the spending - and prohibits any of the money being used on economic development projects. The Senate so far has a different approach and they have not agreed to all the House restrictions. This money is a big, big deal to the Panhandle Republicans and in Tallahassee parlance - this is their going home bill - meaning they can't go home unless they get it worked out.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: This item has gotten plenty of press especially since it has triggered a feud between Scott - who wants to keep funding intact for the state's economic development agency - and House leaders who want to eliminate Enterprise Florida and scale back Visit Florida, the tourism marking agency. The Senate so far is siding with Scott. The question is will they remain in sync with the governor all the way to the finish line.

HIGHER EDUCATION: Negron's bid to increase funding to state universities as part of an effort to propel them into the top ranks of the nation's public colleges is going to be rebuffed by House leaders who contend that universities are misspending what they have now (some of which came with the help of legislators who placed projects into university spending lines.) The one word of caution in this debate is that numbers get thrown around sometimes without a clear sense of what they mean.

Universities are dependent on several streams of funding and it appears so far that the House is lumping everything in to make an argument about overall spending. There are differences between straight state funding and the money that universities take in from other sources - whether it's tuition, money from federal grants, or money medical schools earn from seeing patients. For example, the amount of tuition money can go up even if the rates don't because universities admit more students. T

The House has zeroed in on spending among the foundations and whether it's proper for the universities to use state funding to subsidize fundraising operations. So far, the universities have had a muted response and not given a clear explanation as to practice. One big question is whether or not the House will advocate for blocking universities from using their foundations to pay university employees above state limits.

TRUST FUNDS: It's important to remember that some taxes and fees charged by the state don't wind up in the main budget account. Instead they are set aside in what are known as trust funds. Year in and year out special interests groups argue that money collected in these funds belong to them. And year after year the Legislature politely ignores this and transfers money of these trust funds and uses to help balance the budget.

SPEND NOW, PAY LATER? Unlike the federal government, Florida is required to have a balanced budget every year. That doesn't mean of course the state doesn't have debt. It does.

Until Scott came into office, past governors and legislators authorized borrowing for fixed capital costs such as building college buildings, roads and acquiring environmentally-sensitive lands. Scott started drawing a firm line about this and led the charge to push down the state's debt load. As of last June, it was $24.1 billion or more than $4 billion lower than it was when Scott came into office.

Negron's plan to build a reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee calls for increased borrowing. Currently the bill moving authorizes more than $3 billion in bonding authority to go to various projects, but with an estimated $1.2 billion going to the reservoir project. But that's not what is needed right away in this year's budget.

If the plan is approved it would carry an estimated $100 million price-tag to this year's budget since the bonds would be paid back over 20 years in installments.

So Negron's plan has an immediate cost to the treasury, but it's also important to understand that the full amount of his project will not included in this year's budget.

BOTTOM LINE: Under the current schedule legislators are operating under the House and Senate are expected to pass their budgets during the second week of April.

That week is already truncated because of religious holidays so it is highly unlikely that any negotiations or work can begin until April 17. That means legislators will have about 15 days to get everything worked out in order to get a budget finished on time. That's because Florida law requires the budget to be finished 72 hours before the final vote.

So that's a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of time. Besides the above-mentioned topics there's other issues at play, including pay raises, more money for charter schools etc.

February 16, 2016

There's no doubting that this session of the Florida Legislature has gone _ so far _ smoother than last year. No fiery speeches on the chamber floors over Medicaid expansion. No threats of walk-offs. No steely stares when asked questions from the media about closed-door caucus meetings.

But the big question with just 23 days left is simple: Can this truce last?

And when you talk to legislative leaders and other insiders it remains an open-ended question _ even in an election year when everyone just wants to go home as soon as possible.

The 2016 legislative session began with the House and Senate embracing the top priorities of both House Speaker Steve Crisafulli and Senate President Andy Gardiner as lawmakers quickly passed bills dealing with water policy and providing additional services to those with developmental disabilities. That was followed by hours of hearings in the House and Senate on some contentious bills, that may, or may not, if some senators have their way, pass.

So what's left in the closing days and hours is a conundrum that is going to require someone, including maybe Gov. Rick Scott, to compromise.

Here's why: The Senate and House can't bring a new state budget in for a landing until they reach a consensus on how much money to spend, whether it's on health care, schools as well as tax cuts and the $250 million economic development proposal that Scott wants in order to lure new companies to the state.

Right now these high-level budget decisions - called allocations - have not been made yet. Until those decisions are made then other budget items - whether it's pay raises for state workers or more money for land preservation _ can't be resolved.

"I think we got to start sitting down with the Senate, and you've got to look at the numbers,'' said Rep. Richard Corcoran, the House budget chief. "What can you do with the numbers?"

It's important to note that neither chamber in its initial budget proposals gave the Republican governor exactly what he wanted.

And in fact it almost appeared to be coordinated (although legislators say that wasn't how it worked out.)

The House gave Scott zero on his economic development plan. Their concern isn't so much rooted in cost, but in the overall philosophy behind the deal and whether government should be picking winners and losers. (A common theme sounded by Americans for Prosperity.) The Senate, however, has agreed to give Scott the entire amount for economic development (although the funding source has come under question.)

The Senate meanwhile has budgeted zero for tax cuts while the House has crafted a package that cuts $1 billion, but over a two-and-a-half year period instead of doing it in one year. (The House package also has tax cuts that expire so as to bring down the out year costs.) Scott's own tax cut package is not all $1 billion in one year, but his first year price-tag is $621 million - or nearly $300 million more than the House first year total.

Yes, Gardiner has voiced support for $250 million in tax cuts, but the Senate budget of nearly $81 billion doesn't really have enough money to do it unless you wipe out reserves _ or you cut back spending, sweep trust funds used for affordable housing, etc. Sen. Tom Lee, the Senate budget chairman, acknowledged that reality when talking to reporters last week. It was Lee who pointedly on the floor of the Senate called it "fiscally irresponsible" to try to cut taxes by $1 billion.

So then how do you get to the end of the session and pass the one bill (the budget) that is required each year?

Normal legislative protocol would be to split the difference and rely on the tried-and-true maxim of getting something is better than getting nothing.

But will Scott go along with that?

He made it clear _based on interviews with top legislators who met with him on Tuesday _ that's he's still banking on getting what he asked for.

And that's not just $250 million for economic development but his large tax cut package. Scott has told reporters so far this year that he remains confident that if everyone wants the session to end well that they will reach an agreement with him.

And what happens if they don't? Well Scott last year showed legislators that he has little problem with vetoing their bills and their projects in the budget. Last year several legislators howled in disbelief from Scott's veto pen - but they did little about it afterwards, largely because the House and Senate remained deeply upset over the meltdown of the 2015 regular session and could not work in concert.

Could that change this year? Maybe. But it would seem to be an act of faith to think that Scott will act differently if he doesn't get his way again this year.

Now as a back-up strategy the Legislature could pass a new budget before the scheduled March 11 end of the session. That would require Scott to act within seven days and before they have left town. Theoretically lawmakers could hold back tax cut bills to see how Scott reacted. And if he actually vetoed budget items again, they could either refuse to pass the tax cut bills, or actually override Scott's budget vetoes.

But such a plan would require a good working relationship between the House and Senate _ and that's not apparent right now.

Senators just don't think that the House would go along with an override _ and there are signs that is a correct assumption.

So where does that leave everything?

Well the Legislature could pass a budget and hope Scott will be more cooperative this time around. (You can tell with the recent decisions by the Senate to move his agency heads through confirmation hearings that there is some hope of a breakthrough.)

Sen. Joe Negron, the incoming Senate budget president, said Tuesday that while the top line decisions on spending will be made by Lee and Gardiner he could see all sides working out a deal.

"I think there is a way we can do responsible economic development and have a tax cut package,'' Negron said. "The Legislature and governor have to work together in a way where all parties achieve the goals they have set. The question is how do we get there?"

Yes, but answering that question may well depend on trust.

And so who does everyone trust?

Does the House trust the Senate? Does the Senate trust the House? Do legislators trust Scott?

These are questions that are hard for any reporter who has followed the Legislature the last two years _ and listened closely to both Republican and Democrats _ to answer with authority. And that's why it's hard _ at least right now _ to figure out if this session will go out with a roar, or a whimper.

July 21, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush returned to the state capital on Monday to outline his plans to overhaul the culture of Washington D.C.

And in doing so - he may have _ to the consternation of some of those in the audience helped preserve the state's lobbyist gift ban.

The ban was enacted in late 2005 - one of the strictest regulations in the country at the time - and came after legislative wrangling that was an outgrowth of changes sought by then-Senate President Tom Lee.

For a national audience it may have sounded Monday as if Bush was the instigator of the ban.

"I know how that culture works,'' Bush said. "I saw it here in Tallahassee. Over time, lobbyists and legislators grew a little too comfortable in each other’s company, cutting deals that didn’t have much to do with the public interest. So along with the other changes we made, the Florida Legislature passed a law that I signed into law that created the strictest lobbying reforms in the country."

There's nothing inaccurate in that statement. But it does kind of brush aside a bit of the back story that existed in the development of the ban since it was legislators, not the governor, who was the main driver of the change.

Lee's goal was never to ban anything. He advocated two things: Disclosure of the freebies that lobbyists gave to legislators - and disclosure of how much money lobbyists were paid.

Lee told reporters at the time that they would be surprised how much money was in the system, and how that disclosure would shed a light on why the Legislature did some of the things that it did.

The Brandon Republican made his push for changes at the same time that a series of articles _ many of them in The Miami Herald _ that showed how the state's existing disclosure and gift laws had been flouted.

One example: Legislators couldn't accept anything more than $100 - and items lower than that but higher than $25 were supposed to be reported. Lobbyists would routinely agree to split the costs among themselves and spread it to multiple legislators to sidestep this requirement.

Other stories disclosed how one legislator solicited contributions from lobbyists for a trip to Africa, while another described a lavish engagement party held for one legislator and paid for lobbyists.

Lee's push initially went nowhere - but the issue gained momentum after the Herald published a story in late 2005 that pointed out four legislators flew to Canada on a private jet and visited a casino. They argued that they were raising money for the Republican Party of Florida so it was legal. But the cost of the trip was much more higher than the money raised. Plus it came at a time when legislators were considering how to implement a constitutional amendment dealing with gambling in South Florida.

During a special session late that year Lee pushed to add the gift ban to the mix since it was not included in the initial call issued by Bush. (The special session was called to implement an overhaul of Medicaid and to implement the amendment that allowed slot machines in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.)

The initial Senate bill did not ban everything. Instead it required detailed reporting of who provided meals and beverages to legislators on an individual basis. But it was the House _ led then by SpeakerAllan Bense _ that moved a bill that called for a complete ban.

The telling of the tale since then has posited that Bense and the House did not like the disclosure requirements pushed by Lee so they countered with such a Draconian measure that the Senate would reject it. Only that didn't happen. Lee and the Senate amended their bill to match the House measure and sent it over. Just 9 legislators voted no. Bush eagerly signed the measure into law.

"I applaud President Lee and Speaker Bense for their leadership in reforming the political status quo,'' Bush said at the time. "This measure increases transparency and accountability for the political process."

Since then the ban has survived a legal challenge, but the criticism against it has been steadily mounting, including those who note that there are legal ways for legislators to sidestep it. One key way: Solicit money from lobbyists for political committees and then use that money to pay for meals and other items.

Some lobbyists have complained that the gift ban has somehow distorted the process because they can't share a meal, or drink with legislators and that the ones with access are those who raise large amounts of money for campaigns and political committees.

Tallahassee-area legislators have maintained _ with little empirical data _ that the gift ban hurt the local economy.

Last year marked the first time since 2005 that an attempt to alter the gift ban statute made it through the process. The bill made a relatively minor tweak by making it clear that a local government that gives a legislator use of public property for a public purpose does not violate the gift ban if the local government has hired lobbyists.

But the passage of the bill included several asides from legislators that more substantial changes should be made to the law in the near future.

Bush may have blunted that momentum for now by citing the ban as a justification for a series of reforms he wants to push if elected president.

"I think the system is significantly better after that law was passed,'' Bush told a crowd gathered at Florida State University.

Now for certain it was an interesting crowd for Bush to make the remark since many of those in attendance are themselves lobbyists.

Some of the news accounts noted the connection that Bush himself has to lobbyists, including that his top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, is married to Paul Bradshaw, who founded one of Tallahassee's most successful lobbying firms Southern Strategy Group.

But by placing the gift ban into the orbit of his legacy Bush has created a rationale for top Republicans in the Legislature to support keeping it in largely intact for now. Many top GOP leaders are backing Bush for president.

It still may have been unlikely that the gift ban would have been revamped during the 2016 election year but Bush's decision to champion it may make that an even more remote possibility.

June 05, 2015

State legislators this week began a 20-day special session in an effort to pass a new state budget to avoid a possible partial government shutdown at the end of the month.

The timing of the session, however, is coming at a bad time for Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott has been planning to attend this year's Paris Air Show. It will be his 11th trade mission since he became governor - and the first one since he was re-elected last November.

But the air show is scheduled to run from June 15 to June 21 _ or exactly when the special session could be running into crunch time. (Not to mention that Scott will only have a handful of days to sign the budget into law once it is adopted.)

Last week during a meeting of Enterprise Florida a business leader told Scott that he was looking forward to joining him in Paris. Scott didn't say anything in response.

But when asked if the governor would actually leave town, the Scott administration said "it's a game day decision."

The rationale for the trip is that Florida is home to a lot of aviation and aerospace companies. But Scott _ who has had a limited presence during the special session so far _ could risk being out of the country at a critical moment for state government.

"I hope we can get him out of here in time," quipped Sen. Tom Lee, the Senate budget chief when asked whether or not the governor should attend the event.

What Jeb's allies want

While the fate of Florida's safety net hospitals, tax cuts and the fate of Scott's boost in school funding are the top items at play in the budget this year, there's plenty left in the $77-$80 billion spending plan that will be the target of lobbying in the next few days.

Take for example an appropriation in the House budget for $1.2 million to provide liability insurance to teachers.

This is not a new idea and had been in place while Gov. Jeb Bush was in office. The idea is for the state to help pay for coverage and take away a recruiting tool for the Florida Education Association - which right now is engaged in a lawsuit against Florida's tax credit scholarship program. (This program pays for roughly 70,000 kids to attend private schools around the state.)

Patricia Levesque, a former top policy aide to Bush, chief executive officer of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, executive director of the Foundation for Florida's Future, wrote an email to Senate budget chief Tom Lee strongly urging that the Senate set aside the money for the program.

In a March 31 email with the subject line - "couple of new budget issues for your radar" - Levesque wrote:

"There is a policy moving in the House that would provide every full-time teacher in the state with liability insurance coverage to match the level provided by the teacher's union. As you know, one of the primary reasons teachers give for joining the union is the liability insurance coverage. Teachers are not told that most districts have coverage for their employees or that they could buy a person rider on their homeowner's policy for $100. Instead they join union and pay $650- $850/year in membership dues. The state can provide comparable liability insurance coverage for only $5-6 per teacher ($1.2 million).

You might remember that we had this policy in place for a few years (2001-2006). It took a couple years for the information to get down to teachers - it wasn't until year 3 of the state-provided insurance that insurance cards were actually sent to the teachers before the start of the school year. But as soon as that occurred, the union immediately began working to repeal it. We believe there was a significant hit to membership that year. We think this policy is important to show teachers the state supports them, while giving them peace of mind and allowing them to choose whether or not they want to save their membership dues."

Bush _ who will announce his candidacy for president on June 15 _ left the foundations that he started ahead of his active consideration of the Republican nomination.

But this is a reminder of the long-running battle that Bush and his allies have waged against the state's teacher union (which helped boost the candidacy of Bill McBride, the Democratic nominee for governor who challenged Bush in 2002.)

Big money, big contracts also at stake

Another long-running battle at stake in this year's special session?

Florida's law-enforcement radio contract.

The ongoing tug-of-war over the contract, which now belongs to Florida-based Harris Corp., has been documented over the last couple of years. Part of the debate has been whether to move ahead and begin procurement now for a new contract in advance of the 2021 expiration of the existing one.

But Rep. Ritch Workman, the powerful Rules Committee chairman (and who is missing the first part of the session because he's out of the country), wrote to the Department of Management Services late last month to make the case for his hometown company.

Workman told DMS that Harris would upgrade the existing network to a new type of technology for the radios under its existing contract "at no additional cost." This would obviate the need to award a 19-year contract that could cost nearly $1 billion to fully implement.

The catch is that the state would have to buy the additional radios needed to run on this system. That would be a $84 million cost according to estimates that Harris provided to DMS.

DMS Secretary Chad Poppell in his response to Workman agreed that "savings to the state may exist." But he added he looked forward to "productive discussions" with the Legislature to fund it. He also said it would require a substantial technical undertaking to fully evaluate the proposal. Poppell also said that DMS would likely have to hire additional employees in order to oversee the project.

One of Harris's main competitors for the new contract, however, has a slightly different viewpoint on the proposal.

A project manager for Motorola Solutions wrote Poppell and said the proposal "amounts to a tactic to bypass the state's competitive bidding laws."

"If the state were to implement this proposal as written, it could become a very costly mistake,'' wrote Jay Malpass, strategic project manager for Motorola Solutions.

The letter contends that Harris' proposal would allow it to get a head start on other vendors in advance of the new contract.

"We want to be clear that it is our opinion that if the state proceeds with the accepting the Harris proposal, it will create an anti-competitive environment in which legitimate vendors would not be in a position to offer what will be a better, more comprehensive and cost effective solution to the state."

As Marc Caputo with Politico noted this morning on the same subject: The contracting battle should be closely watched because those backing Harris are friends, allies and big time fundraisers of Gov. Rick Scott. The Harris roster of lobbyists includes Brian Ballard and the rest of Ballard Partners as well as long-time Scott pal Billy Rubin and other lobbyists in The Rubin Group including former top Scott aide Chris Finkbeiner.

Motorola is represented by Southern Strategy Group - the deeply-connected well-heeled firm formed by PaulBradshaw, attorney, lobbyist, and who been in close contact with many top GOP politicians in the state. Bradshaw's wife, Sally Bradshaw, is a former chief of staff for Jeb Bush and will likely have a substantial role in helping him run for president.

SSG's long-roster of lobbyists also includes many former top officials in state government during the last two decades.

April 01, 2013

Sen. Tom Lee - who has already acknowledged that his effort is likely a long shot this year - moved his rework of the state's seven-year-old "zero tolerance" gift ban through its first committee stop on Monday.

Lee is pushing through the changes to take away some of the constant criticisms that he's heard over the years since the gift ban was first passed.

These include provisions that lawmakers "can't even take a cup of coffee" or "a bottle of water" during a meeting with a lobbyist. His proposed changes would also attempt to make it easier for a lawmaker to show up at a luncheon sponsored by a hometown group.

The kicker in Lee's bill is that it would revert everything back to current law on June 30, 2015. Lee said he put these provisions in to make sure that just in case the changes he proposed turn into big loopholes the law will automatically revert back to the way it once was.

Lee's effort is a long shot because there is no House companion bill - and he's trying to get it through his first committee during the mid-way point of the session.

But it's important to recall a bit of history here to understand why - and how - Florida got to where it is now.

``It has gone on year after year,`` said prosecutor Anthony Guarisco
of legislators vacationing luxuriously at lobbyists` expense.

The
seven-page report from the grand jury reads like a deluxe travelogue as
it outlines where lobbyists took legislators. The destinations included
Riverview Plantation, Camilla, Ga.; Monterey, Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska;
Colorado; Paris; Zurich, Switzerland; and Monte Carlo, Monaco. Also on
the list were several out-of-state college sports games.

Meggs wound up charging legislators for failing to report gifts worth more than $25.

State lawmakers in response to the ongoing coverage of the trips changed the law to ban all gifts worth $100 or more.

But by 2005 it was clear that a system had arisen that allowed lawmakers to still receive benefits from lobbyists. It was done in a way to sidestep disclosure requirements that mandated that lobbyists report expenditures over $25.

The meeting of Miami-Dade lawmakers over dinner was held at
an oak-shaded French restaurant near the Capitol.

On the agenda: fighting a controversial change in school funding that could
hurt urban districts.

The tab for that night at Chez Pierre: $481.89 - about $70 for each of the
seven legislators in attendance. The bill was paid by Bill Rubin, a powerful
lobbyist who represents, among other clients, the Broward County School Board.

Almost a year after the dinner, Rubin has yet to file the gift-disclosure
form required by Florida law. Had a Miami Herald reporter not accidentally
walked in on the event, the public would never have known about it.

Rubin, who did not return calls for comment, isn't alone in how he deals with
Florida's disclosure
requirements for lobbyists. A Herald review of three years' worth of gift-disclosure forms shows that only a few lobbyists regularly report when they hand out gifts
or pay for meals worth more than $25 - the threshold for reporting for
legislators or their aides.

That same story detailed that lobbyists such as Ron Book side-stepped the disclosure requirement by inviting large groups of people to receptions he paid for which brought down the per-person costs. Other lobbyists would divide the amount spent on a legislator by dividing it by the number of clients they represent.

That same year saw a series of stories in the Miami Herald about the relationship between lobbyists and legislators including:

Rows
of sushi and Chinese food greeted the political power-hitters at Sen. Alex Diaz de la
Portilla's upscale home in Tallahassee as a guitarist strummed
away and the wine and liquor from the open bar poured freely.The March 9 party was in honor of Sen. Victor Crist and his new fiancee. The main bankroller for the $5,000 tab: prominent South Florida lobbyist Bob
Levy, whose lengthy roster of clients includes the Professional Wrecker
Operators of Florida.

....Because as many as 150 people were present at the party, the event would not
violate Florida's ban on gifts of more than $100 to public officials. But the
party is another example of the often-hidden world in the state capital where
legislators have a cozy relationship with lobbyists who represent special
interests.

Or this one:

A
prominent Miami lobbyist, whose list of clients includes tow-truck operators,
nurses, hospitals and the New World School of the Arts, is sponsoring an
engagement party Tuesday for freshman Republican Rep. Anitere Flores.

All 25 members of the Miami-Dade County legislative delegation have been
invited for cocktails and dinner at the New Chinatown Restaurant in South Miami
to celebrate the upcoming wedding of the 29-year-old Flores, a lawyer who works
at Florida International University

And this one:

A
month ago The Miami
Herald reported that (Sen. Mandy) Dawson
had sent out a letter to lobbyists asking them to help pay the $2,500 she
needed to take an economic development trip to South
Africa. In her letter on official Senate stationery, Dawson
asked lobbyists to send the money to the state's Legislative Black Caucus.

Two of the people she wrote to, including powerful South
Florida lobbyist Ron Book, gave money to the caucus, as did a South
Florida ophthalmologist and well-known fund-raiser.

And in the incident that helped propel the decision to push the ban during a 2005 special session:

The owner of Gulfstream Park and other racetracks across the
country paid nearly $50,000 to fly four powerful state lawmakers to the
company's headquarters in Toronto this summer, but reported the costs as a
contribution to the Republican Party of Florida.

The two-day trip in July came in the midst of an ongoing effort by track owners
in Broward County to persuade state legislators to spell out when slot machines
can be installed there. Broward voters approved allowing four parimutuels in
the county to have slot machines, but state legislators ended the 2005 spring
session without passing a bill to let the tracks add the machines.

The payment came to light this week when the state Republican Party filed its
quarterly contributions report....There is nothing illegal or improper about such large contributions, as long as
they are controlled by the party. But they cannot be made to individual
legislators: State law prohibits giving lawmakers gifts valued at more than
$100.

While one of the lawmakers on the trip, former Senate President Jim King,
insisted it was simply an opportunity to raise money for the state GOP, current
Senate President Tom Lee said no one in the party ever authorized the
fundraiser.

It's also important to note that Lee and the Senate initially did not propose a complete ban on all expenditures by lobbyists. The original bill, SB 6B, instead proposed that lobbying expenditures be restricted to food and beverage and novelty items and that detailed reports be filed detailing which legislator or legislative employee received the gift. That same legislation also would have barred convicted felons from serving as lobbyists unless they had their civil rights restored.

Tallahassee lore - which several legislators have since confirmed - has that the House did not like the reporting mechanism included in the bill and instead proposed a zero ban.

The thinking was that the Senate would not accept such a strict requirement and the status quo would remain. Instead the Senate did adopt the "zero tolerance" language and the bill was passed and sent to the governor. This final measure changed the language regarding felons to apply it only to someone convicted after Jan. 1, 2006.

These reports not only included entertainment expenses, but also included any money spent on media advertising, research, publication etc. In its place lobbyists - excluding those working directly for local governments or associations - began reporting how much they got paid by their clients. (A legal challenge to this portion of the bill did not succeed.) But what this meant is that lobbying firms were no longer required to report how much was spent say on TV ads trying to convince lawmakers to pass or defeat a bill.

Since the bill was passed there have been plenty of articles that have pointed out the ways to get around this ban, including lawmakers using political committees known as committees of continuous existence, or relying on perks given in connection to fundraisers.

There also unsubstantiated anecdotes that a new barter system has been established where a legislator will attend an event at the home of a lobbyist and show up with a bottle of wine or some other item to cover their costs.

Obviously to use an oft-heard phrase - trying to put limits on the relationship between lobbyists and legislator is a "work in progress."